39 / 48
Some commentators have called for the complete abolition of the
threats regime. Whilst the underlying purpose of the threats
regime, of protecting traders from abusive claims by IP holders
which would cause damage to businesses, is a necessary check,
there is a little doubt that the current regime has introduced
uncertainty into this area, and an element of risk that could have
the effect of preventing IP holders from properly asserting their
rights at an early stage, which in turn may prevent the early
resolution of disputes.
The bill provides much needed further clarity to the area of
unjustified threats; however, IP holders will still need to give very
careful thought to the precise content of any letters to suspected
infringers so as not to fall foul of the proposed amended
legislation, particularly if the Courts continue to construe the
exceptions very narrowly.
Whether the Bill ever gets passed is unclear at the moment, but
as is evident, the law relating to threats is complicated. However,
even as matters stand, retailers should:
• Carefully consider any communications from IP holders threat-
ening further action
• Take appropriate legal advice regarding a threats action
• Don’t just roll-over – a simple notification of a potential threats
action may resolve the issue
Daniel Keating is a solicitor in the Commercial Litigation Team at
Hill Dickinson LLP, specialising in IP disputes.
DANIEL KEATING
//
Daniel.keating@hilldickinson.com
//
www.hilldickinson.com“The bill
provides much
needed further
clarity to the
area of
unjustified
threats”
retailer |
summer
2016 |
39
retail news